Abstract

Excerpted From: Emma Adams, An Examination of Race in Reproductive Oppression: Why Intersectional Abortion Stigma Disruption Is Necessary to Achieve Reproductive Justice in 2024 and Beyond, 36 UC Law SF Journal on Gender and Justice 3 (January, 2025) (182 Footnotes) (Full Document)

In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the landmark decision Roe v. Wade, creating the opportunity for states to ban abortion outright. Since 2022, thirteen states have made abortion illegal. Although Dobbs is a decision pertaining to access to reproductive healthcare, the implications are more far reaching. Fundamentally, it is a decision that has roots in ableism, sexism, racism, and eugenics; it is about individual liberty and the place of women, and those who can become pregnant, in our society. Pregnant individuals will continue to be negatively affected by this decision, especially those in marginalized populations such as women of color, women with disabilities, transgender and nonbinary persons, and those who live at the intersection of these identities. Throughout this analysis, I will provide statistics, medical studies, and opinions from health professionals to support this notion, as well as refute falsities spread by anti-abortion advocates concerning the impacts of restrictive reproductive legislation.

Race is implicated in abortion laws across the United States, both historically and today. For example, in 2024, states with the most restrictive abortion bans include Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi. This geographical hub is relevant because in 2019, the South was the region with the highest share of the country's Black population, (56%.) According to most recent census data, 33.2% of residents in Georgia identify as Black or African American, along with 26.5% of Alabaman residents, and 32.6% of Louisiana residents. Compared to the national population of Black or African Americans, about 13%, these states in the south home more than double the national black population percentage. More Black people live in Texas than any other state, with 178,631 more Black citizens than Georgia, which is the second-largest state in terms of Black population. Similarly, Texas has one of the highest Hispanic populations in the country with 39.44% of individuals identifying as Hispanic, along with Arizona, which has a Hispanic population of 31.51% and one of the most restrictive abortion policies in the country. While Arizona is not located in the Southern part of the United States, its highly restrictive abortion policy disproportionately impacts women of color and will be discussed in depth in this article.

The overturning of Roe disproportionately impacts women of color and women of low socioeconomic status, who can no longer access essential healthcare. Generally, Black and Indigenous people, immigrants, and rural residents have relatively limited access to abortion care and other reproductive health services. “Access to prenatal treatments and obstetrical care is decreasing in locations where people can no longer easily obtain contraception or end an unintended pregnancy, with the biggest declines taking place in both rural and urban areas that are primarily Black, Indigenous, or Latinx. Maternal mortality statistics reveal the impact of systemic racism on reproductive health. According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Black and Indigenous individuals are two to four times more likely to die during pregnancy or shortly after giving birth than white individuals. Abortion, which is now criminalized in many U.S. communities, is often safer than pregnancy and delivery, especially for Black and Indigenous people. According to an analysis by the National Partnership for Women & Families, there are roughly 15.4 million women of color who are of reproductive age living in states with abortion bans after the Dobbs decision. Black and Native American women are the most likely to live in states with abortion bans, while Latinas are the largest group of women of color harmed by abortion bans.

While the overturning of Roe v Wade marks the starkest departure from abortion as a fundamental right, the federal government and several state governments attempted to limit access to abortion for decades before the Dobbs decision. More than 1,300 abortion restrictions were enacted since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, which combined with the failures of the health care and economic systems to provide Black, Indigenous and Latino communities access to affordable health care, created disproportionate harm to those already subject to systemic racism and economic injustice. The passage of the Hyde Amendment in 1976, a policy that prevents federal dollars from being used in government insurance programs like Medicaid for abortion services, impacted communities of color disproportionately, because Medicaid overwhelmingly serves Black and Latino communities. Additionally, landmark cases like Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Gonzales v. Cahart, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, and June Medical Services v. Russo represent a combined 30 years of legislative efforts at the state level towards restricting access to abortion.

paper is intended to provide a contextual basis on how racism and classism are extrinsically linked to reproductive oppression and provide an opportunity for reproductive justice advocates across all identities to better understand how marginalized communities were disproportionally impacted by oppressive reproductive policies. By recognizing this history, modern organizers can apply a more intersectional approach to reproductive healthcare and disrupt harmful racialized and economic stereotypes that inform anti-abortion legislation today. Part I of this article highlights relevant examples of racist reproductive policies from the early 1920s to the passage of Roe v Wade, to illustrate how women of color have consistently suffered in reproductive oppression. Part II focuses on the period between Roe and Dobbs, by examining proposed legislation and providing landmark cases illustrations related to abortion restrictions and their disparate impacts on poor women of color. Part III discusses where we are now, examining the impacts of the Dobbs decision on abortion statistics and maternal health by analyzing restrictive state policies in 2024. Finally, Part IV suggests a widespread adoption of an intersectional approach to securing reproductive justice after the overturning of Roe, by encouraging abortion stigma disruption at varying societal levels.

[. . .]

Finally, the Reproductive Justice Framework challenges the historical place of women in the power structure of the United States, particularly in communities of color, who have been historically oppressed and abused in relation to reproduction. This framework modifies structural power disparities through the application of a model based on organizing women and girls. To disrupt abortion stigma faced by low-income women of color and their communities, it is imperative to foster their leadership and reinforce their social, political, and economic influence. By incorporating multiracial and multiclass constituencies into the national policy arena and establishing a network of human rights and social justice groups that incorporate a reproductive justice agenda, women can disrupt abortion stigma at the political level.

Women in this arena can reject modern anti-abortion rhetoric and instead pivot to the reality that underlies the history of reproductive oppression: controlling a woman's body controls her life, her options, and her potential. The strict conceptions of motherhood and womanhood pushed forward by anti-abortion advocates can be challenged by a diverse set of actors who contend that this stigma is not a result of legitimate concern; it is instead a result of a history of oppressive, racist, and classist policies reinforced by patriarchal power structures. By disrupting abortion stigma at the macro-level, reproductive justice is attainable, paving the way for bodily autonomy to be regained moving past the Dobbs decision.